No.
No, what????
Your claims:
[ProgressingAmerica #135] Massachusetts' legislature was considering abolition as early as 1768 IIRC until it got vetoed by their royal creature Hutchinson.[Woodpusher #137] And your memory appears to serve you
serves youill. American-born Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768.[ProgressingAmerica #138] The kicker is, you don't even deny that the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!!
[woodpusher #146] To clarify, you do not remember correctly. Hutchison was not Governor in 1768 and did not do the dirty deed as you claim to recall. You are simply uninformed or misinformed. In any case, the alleged dirty deed of 1768, which Hutchinson did not do, would not have been a dirty deed but the act of a British Colonial Governor, appointed to his position to carry out the Royal will, doing his duty.
Did Hutchison veto anything in 1768? No. When told Hutchison was not governor in 1768, did you research your false claim? No. Rather than research and correct your false claim, you observed idiotically that I did not deny "the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!! You had already been told Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768. I then responded correctly that Hutchison did not do the deed, as alleged, in 1768.
Have you yet identified what bill of what body was vetoed when? Nope. You are just being an ass.
You could simply go look these things up.
It was your false claim. It was was your responsibility to research it before you made it. It was also your responsibility to research it after you were told your claim was false. I am not your secretary. Even when I know the answer, I am not responsible to spoon feed you.
Governor Bernard also did the same thing.
"Governor" Hutchinson did do a damn thing in 1768. You did not say Governor Bernard did anything at all. Governor Bernard did the same thing as who?
Governor Hutchinson vetoed a bill in 1771.
Governor Bernard dissolved the General Court of Massachusetts in 1768.
In 1767, the General Court of Massachusetts (the equivalent of the House of Representatives) passed a bill “to prevent the unnatural and unwarrantable custom of enslaving mankind in this province and the importation of slaves into the same.”
That was in 1767, not 1768.
What happened then? The King’s representative, Governor Bernard, vetoed the bill.
In 1768 the same bill was passed again, only to be met with the dissolution of the body by the Governor.
Fast forward to 1771. This time it was the General Court and the Council which took the decision to abolish the slave trade. The bill was vetoed by Governor Hutchinson.
You scrambled Governors Bernard and Hutchinson, and actions taken in 1767, 1768 and 1771. Saying "the dirty deed," even with three exclamation points, does not state what the dirty deed was. Indeed, if it was a bill considered by the Massachusetts General Court in 1768, it was not vetoed, but rather the Court was dissolved by Governor Bernard. If it was a bill that was vetoed in 1768, all considering by the Court was done in 1767 before the bill was passed - in 1767.
You are in bed with the New York Times.
You are in bed with Rachel Levine.
I'm ok with a small technical error. We've now crossed the rubicon with you openly admitting that the king and his creatures did, in fact, do this. After all this hype and consternation and regret.
Massachusetts definitely would've been a free-soil state come the future 1776 had the hostile foreign power not interfered. No, not 13 slave states. 12 + 1 free. The Empire forced slavery on the United States.
(Note: perhaps I should purposefully type more small errors to trick him to admit the truth sooner and avoid all of this drama. It's worth considering. At post 180, all of this was unnecessary. This could have been back at post 60 or so.)